Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Wed Jul 17 22:09:53 CEST 2013
On 17/07/2013 19:13, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> Let me ask one thing... a couple of years ago, when I read the
> specification of Teredo, I was quite impressed by the details (If
> you accept the premise that you have to work around being jailed
> behind an IPv4 NAT) put into the protocol. One detail was that it
> is supposed to be lowest priority and so go automatically away
> (from the client end) as soon as some configued IPv6 is available
> on the link.
> Isn't that how it's implemented?
Yes, but the result is that the host tries to use Teredo preferentially
even if the IPv4 path is better; and if the Teredo path is broken
the result is user pain (as with 6to4). I think the idea of deprecating
Teredo is that now that native IPv6 is a serious option, the costs of
Teredo outweigh the benefits,on average.
(Unfortunately nobody ever wrote the Teredo equivalent of RFC6343.)
More information about the ipv6-ops